OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS [message #18606] Wed, 23 May 2007 19:04 Go to next message
William Lee Irwin III is currently offline  William Lee Irwin III
Messages: 20
Registered: April 2007
Junior Member
* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
>> [...] sched_yield() semantics are yet another twist.

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08:40:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> that's nonsense, sched_yield() semantics are totally uninteresting. It 
> is a fundamentally broken interface.

They're not totally uninteresting. People will complain when apps
break or perform poorly due to changes in its semantics. As an
interface it may be poor and worse yet poorly specified, but it has
non-negligible effects on performance issues that can't be ignored
and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

The content of my comment was that the patch does something to
sched_yield() semantics, so it raises the question of what will happen
in benchmarks and other performance affairs that are sensitive to
sched_yield() semantics changes.


-- wli
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS [message #18630 is a reply to message #18606] Wed, 23 May 2007 19:26 Go to previous message
Ingo Molnar is currently offline  Ingo Molnar
Messages: 51
Registered: December 2005
Member
* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:

> * William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
> >> [...] sched_yield() semantics are yet another twist.
> 
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08:40:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > that's nonsense, sched_yield() semantics are totally uninteresting. It 
> > is a fundamentally broken interface.

> [...] As an interface it may be poor and worse yet poorly specified, 
> [...]

that's the only thing that matters to fundamental design questions like 
this.

> The content of my comment was that the patch does something to 
> sched_yield() semantics, so it raises the question of what will happen 
> in benchmarks and other performance affairs that are sensitive to 
> sched_yield() semantics changes.

the correct aproach to the "sys_sched_yield() is an API that sucks" 
problem is to simply _not use it_. User-space is figuring that out now, 
fortunately.

	Ingo
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
Previous Topic: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
Next Topic: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Nov 17 02:14:34 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02947 seconds